About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
's ridiculous. >> what the bill does -- >> reporter: now the defense of marriage act, also known by doma first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996, is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide whether as to whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean, we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c., and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: and conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefit and the issue with doma really gets complicate federal they have children who ar
a challenge to the defense of marriage act, or doma. that federal law defines marriage as being one man and one woman. edith windsor of new york is a plaintiff in the doma case. she fought back when she received an inheritance tax bill for $363,000 when her partner of 42 years died in 2009. here's what she told you in an earlier interview. >> new york state accepted my marriage as a marriage. and i believe and the justice department and the president agreed with me that the law doma is unconstitutional. doma is cruel. it discriminates against us for absolutely no value to the country. and we'd like to see that defeated all together. >> joe johns is in washington with more on what's ahead this week. morning, joe. >> morning. these are two of the most important cases of the year for the supreme court. the case involving edith windsor is actually the second case scheduled to be heard this week on wednesday. that challenge to the federal defense of marriage act. this is the law passed by congress and signed by the pld in 1996 that takes away benefits of marriage of same-sex couples on the f
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
support for gay marriage. come out for d.o.m.a., which he passed. they have sort of come to the light, if you will. republicans i think need to also have a, they need to go to authenticity school or wherever it is that you learn how to do this sort of stuff if they're going to move the party forward on this. >> the fact that they've called this the growth and opportunity project, i think says it all this is about, i know that this is is a strategy document for trying to win more votes. but why not call it something like, what we can do for middle class america. i mean, why not make this about the policies of the republican party that are going to help people, rather than how we can get more votes. i mean that for me said it all. and at the same time that this comes out, you have the republican congressman from tennessee suggesting we should have random drug testing of welfare recipients. there you have the exact opposite message coming out from a republican again, about how they view basically poor people. >> and unfortunately, we didn't have time to discuss this, this piece of strate
at mhpshow.com. that's our show for today. i'll see you tomorrow to talk about the supreme court case, doma, and prop 8. all that on mph tomorrow. coming up "weekends with alex witt." is saving money better than not saving money? [ kids ] yeah! ok. if you saved enough money, what would you do with it? i would buy an island made out of candy. an island made out of candy? it would be like sand full of sugar. sand full of sugar? the water could be made out of like soda, and when you take a shower it could be made out of like hot fudge. ooooo. what about the animals? what would they be made out of? um, i'm assuming they'd be made out of candy? [ male announcer ] it's not complicated. saving is better. switch to at&t and your family can save up to 100 dollars a month with mobile share. ♪
defense of marriage act or doma which defines federal acknowledgment of same-sex marriag marriages. at stake? federal marriage benefits for those who are legally married. the arguments laid out before the nine justices this week will establish a furd precedence for the next chapter for the fight in marriage equality. this is a watershed moment. but it is just part of a long and continuing struggle because the struggle has already been quite long. in the summer of 1969, five days of riots sparked by the aggressive anti-guy police action in new york city founded a battle cry that helped to launch the guy rights movement. a year later, a couple in minnesota was denied a marriage license because state law limited marriage to persons of the opposite sex. their case made to the u.s. supreme court back in 1972. it was dismissed without so much as a written opinion. the court ruled that same sex couples have no constitutional rights married and that the legal challenge itself failed to raise a substantial federal question at all. but the struggle continued. it would be another 14 years bef
party coming up with a video changing the clinton view on doma and in the republican party, we're hearing from all across the spectrum that regardless of what the supreme court does the party needs to have a more libertarian view on this. republicans are telling us it would be a huge help with fund-raising especially in the big states of new york, california, and florida. if the republican party were to be more open on this. and people are telling us that investors don't want to invest what they think losing national elections which could continue to be the case if republicans stay very narrow on this issue. republicans i talked to even extremely conservative ones, very christian conservative republicans are telling me the polls they have seen in the last couple of weeks have been eye-opening, showing not only that young people very heavily in favor of gay marriage, but if you extrapolate that a little bit in just 10, 20 years, this is going to be 70/30 issue that republicans are going to be quickly going to be on the wrong side of. >> to your point, mike, looking at a graphic.
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)